IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i17p11023-d906075.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Novel AHP-PRISM Risk Assessment Method—An Empirical Case Study in a Nuclear Power Plant

Author

Listed:
  • Ferenc Bognár

    (Department of Management and Business Economics, Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Magyar Tudósok Körútja 2, H-1117 Budapest, Hungary)

  • Petra Benedek

    (Department of Management and Business Economics, Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Magyar Tudósok Körútja 2, H-1117 Budapest, Hungary)

Abstract

Risk assessment methods are a continuously developing field in research and practice. Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) methods, like AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process), have a significant role in traditional risk assessment development. The PRISM (Partial Risk Map) methodology is a novel risk assessment method aiming at safety and reliability-sensitive operational fields. Since the PRISM method initially applies deterministic evaluation scales just like many traditional risk assessment techniques, this research focuses on developing the PRISM method by combining it with AHP. Thus, the new AHP-PRISM method can create more sensitive rankings than the original method, and the consistency of the expert group can also be tested after the assessment. By applying the consistency test, the reliability of the assessment can be described, which is necessary for a safety culture environment. Based on a real-life case study in a nuclear power plant (NPP), the new AHP-PRISM method is tested.

Suggested Citation

  • Ferenc Bognár & Petra Benedek, 2022. "A Novel AHP-PRISM Risk Assessment Method—An Empirical Case Study in a Nuclear Power Plant," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-15, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:17:p:11023-:d:906075
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/17/11023/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/17/11023/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ievgen Babeshko & Oleg Illiashenko & Vyacheslav Kharchenko & Kostiantyn Leontiev, 2022. "Towards Trustworthy Safety Assessment by Providing Expert and Tool-Based XMECA Techniques," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(13), pages 1-25, June.
    2. Bizet, Romain & Bonev, Petyo & Lévêque, François, 2022. "The effect of local monitoring on nuclear safety and compliance: Evidence from France," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    3. László Berényi & Zoltán Birkner & Nikolett Deutsch, 2020. "A Multidimensional Evaluation of Renewable and Nuclear Energy among Higher Education Students," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-22, February.
    4. David Ruiz Bargueño & Valerio Antonio Pamplona Salomon & Fernando Augusto Silva Marins & Pedro Palominos & Luis Armando Marrone, 2021. "State of the Art Review on the Analytic Hierarchy Process and Urban Mobility," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(24), pages 1-13, December.
    5. Borysiewicz, Mieczysław & Kowal, Karol & Potempski, Sławomir, 2015. "An application of the value tree analysis methodology within the integrated risk informed decision making for the nuclear facilities," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 113-119.
    6. Ildar Z. Batyrshin & Edit Tóth-Laufer, 2022. "Bipolar Dissimilarity and Similarity Correlations of Numbers," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-16, March.
    7. Cinelli, Marco & Kadziński, Miłosz & Gonzalez, Michael & Słowiński, Roman, 2020. "How to support the application of multiple criteria decision analysis? Let us start with a comprehensive taxonomy," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    8. Vargas, Luis G., 1990. "An overview of the analytic hierarchy process and its applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 2-8, September.
    9. Huang, Jia & You, Jian-Xin & Liu, Hu-Chen & Song, Ming-Shun, 2020. "Failure mode and effect analysis improvement: A systematic literature review and future research agenda," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 199(C).
    10. Vaidya, Omkarprasad S. & Kumar, Sushil, 2006. "Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 169(1), pages 1-29, February.
    11. Ming Sun & Taosheng Li & Jie Yu & Daochuan Ge & Ying Bai & Longlong Tao, 2022. "A New Reliability Allocation Method Based on PSA and AHP for Fusion Reactors," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-10, July.
    12. Rezaei, Jafar, 2015. "Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 49-57.
    13. Romain Bizet & Petyo Bonev & François Lévêque, 2022. "The effect of local monitoring on nuclear safety and compliance: Evidence from France," Post-Print hal-03626810, HAL.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Heino Pesch & Louis Louw, 2023. "Exploring the Industrial Symbiosis Potential of Plant Factories during the Initial Establishment Phase," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-30, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ormerod, Richard J. & Ulrich, Werner, 2013. "Operational research and ethics: A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 228(2), pages 291-307.
    2. Bartłomiej Kizielewicz & Jarosław Wątróbski & Wojciech Sałabun, 2020. "Identification of Relevant Criteria Set in the MCDA Process—Wind Farm Location Case Study," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(24), pages 1-40, December.
    3. Lucas, Rochelle Irene & Promentilla, Michael Angelo & Ubando, Aristotle & Tan, Raymond Girard & Aviso, Kathleen & Yu, Krista Danielle, 2017. "An AHP-based evaluation method for teacher training workshop on information and communication technology," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 93-100.
    4. Siraj, Sajid & Mikhailov, Ludmil & Keane, John A., 2015. "Contribution of individual judgments toward inconsistency in pairwise comparisons," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 242(2), pages 557-567.
    5. Zsuzsanna Katalin Szabo & Zsombor Szádoczki & Sándor Bozóki & Gabriela C. Stănciulescu & Dalma Szabo, 2021. "An Analytic Hierarchy Process Approach for Prioritisation of Strategic Objectives of Sustainable Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-26, February.
    6. Dong, Yucheng & Xu, Yinfeng & Li, Hongyi & Dai, Min, 2008. "A comparative study of the numerical scales and the prioritization methods in AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 186(1), pages 229-242, April.
    7. Madjid Tavana & Mehdi Soltanifar & Francisco J. Santos-Arteaga, 2023. "Analytical hierarchy process: revolution and evolution," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 326(2), pages 879-907, July.
    8. Tohid Atashbar, 2013. "Iranian Disease: Why a Developing Country's Government Did Not Listen to Economists' Advices," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(3), pages 732-760, July.
    9. Wu, Xingli & Liao, Huchang, 2023. "A compensatory value function for modeling risk tolerance and criteria interactions in preference disaggregation," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    10. Omid Valizadeh & Mojtaba Ghiyasi, 2023. "Assessing telecommunication contractor firms using a hybrid DEA-BWM method," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 33(4), pages 189-200.
    11. Vineet Kaushik & Shobha Tewari, 2023. "Modeling Opportunity Indicators Fostering Social Entrepreneurship: A Hybrid Delphi and Best-Worst Approach," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 168(1), pages 667-698, August.
    12. Ferenc Bognár & Balázs Szentes & Petra Benedek, 2022. "Development of the PRISM Risk Assessment Method Based on a Multiple AHP-TOPSIS Approach," Risks, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-16, November.
    13. Alessio Ishizaka & Enrique Mu, 2023. "What is so special about the analytic hierarchy and network process?," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 326(2), pages 625-634, July.
    14. Cinelli, Marco & Kadziński, Miłosz & Miebs, Grzegorz & Gonzalez, Michael & Słowiński, Roman, 2022. "Recommending multiple criteria decision analysis methods with a new taxonomy-based decision support system," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 302(2), pages 633-651.
    15. Dhalmahapatra, Krantiraditya & Garg, Ashish & Singh, Kritika & Xavier, Nirmal Francis & Maiti, J., 2022. "An integrated RFUCOM – RTOPSIS approach for failure modes and effects analysis: A case of manufacturing industry," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 221(C).
    16. Shapiro, Arnold F. & Koissi, Marie-Claire, 2017. "Fuzzy logic modifications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 189-202.
    17. A Ishizaka & D Balkenborg & T Kaplan, 2011. "Influence of aggregation and measurement scale on ranking a compromise alternative in AHP," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 62(4), pages 700-710, April.
    18. Bakhtiar Feizizadeh & Thomas Blaschke, 2013. "GIS-multicriteria decision analysis for landslide susceptibility mapping: comparing three methods for the Urmia lake basin, Iran," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 65(3), pages 2105-2128, February.
    19. Macharis, Cathy & Bernardini, Annalia, 2015. "Reviewing the use of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for the evaluation of transport projects: Time for a multi-actor approach," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 177-186.
    20. A Ishizaka & D Balkenborg & T Kaplan, 2011. "Does AHP help us make a choice? An experimental evaluation," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 62(10), pages 1801-1812, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:17:p:11023-:d:906075. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.